17 Mar 2026
The Leave Application was dismissed as out of time and, on the merits, the Board's Decision was lawful, rational and fair with no arguable legal error or realistic prospect of success, so no extension of time should be granted.
24 Oct 2025
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of judicial review with a realistic prospect of success, failed to provide a credible reason to extend time for a filing more than eight months late, and the NRCPO decision did not disclose procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality sufficient to vitiate it.
28 Aug 2025
The leave application was dismissed because it was filed approximately 32 months out of time with no satisfactory explanation for the delay; in the alternative, the underlying non-refoulement claim lacked arguable merit because the Board lawfully and fairly assessed the evidence and country information and reached rational findings, so no extension should be granted.
16 May 2025
The summons for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant was 103 days late without a satisfactory explanation and failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on appeal; the post‑trial medical records did not meet the established criteria for fresh evidence and did not establish causation from defendant's conduct; costs were awarded to the defendant.
13 May 2025
Extension of time was refused and the application dismissed because it was filed outside the three-month limit without explanation and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success; the Board's credibility and risk findings were reasonable and not susceptible to supervisory interference.
11 Apr 2023
The application for leave was dismissed and time not extended because the applicant was four months late with no good reason, provided no written evidence of a significant change as required by s37ZO, and the proposed subsequent claim had no realistic prospect of success; given repetitive and meritless attempts to relitigate a finally determined non‑refoulement claim, a 5‑year Restricted Proceedings Order was appropriate to prevent abuse of process.
25 May 2022
The application for leave was refused because it was grossly out of time with no adequate explanation, the proposed challenge had no realistic prospect of success (the Board’s decision displayed no error of law or procedural unfairness and was not irrational), the applicant had defaulted at hearings thereby undermining her case, and the balance of prejudice and public interest weighed against granting an extension of time.
10 May 2022
Refused leave and denied extension of time because the application was filed out of time without adequate explanation, the Board's findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation were not legally flawed or Wednesbury unreasonable, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law, and the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
6 May 2022
Refusal of extension of time and refusal of leave was justified because the application was grossly out of time (over 20 months), the applicant gave no satisfactory explanation, the substantive challenge had no realistic prospect of success as the Board's findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation were lawful and rational, and granting extension would cause prejudice to public administration and encourage abuse.
17 Nov 2021
Extension of time and leave were refused because the application was about one year late, the applicant provided insufficient grounds and documentary support, and, having regard to the Director's findings that the risk of death or serious harm was low with available state protection and viable internal relocation, the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.